You only have to look at the state of the World that we all live on to know what is coming needs to be addressed.

For more than 70 years, world leaders have gathered before the United Nations General Assembly to speak and to be heard.

Recent remarks by President Trump and Mrs T May during the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly showed that the General Assembly is in need of revitalization in order to stop rhetoric that clearly breached the core principle of the United Nations aspirations, Peace in the world.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how is the current united nations president"

The United Nations Emblem

The design is “a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree, in gold on a field of smoke-blue with all water areas in white. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles”

The “UN” stands for the united nations. Nations meaning just that…all of the nations on our GLOBE.  The olive branches signify peace.

It is easy to call for reforms and to threaten withholding funds or for that matter to stir up what is already a threat to world peace by making promises of total nuclear destruction.

On the other hand it is right to call on the Organisation to reform so that it can addresses the world it now exist in.

So is the UN still a force for global good, or is it another of those world organisations that is out of date.

If one looks beyond the organisation’s flaws and points to the importance of the UN on the global stage there is no doubt providing aid to the more than 55 million refugees in 123 countries is good.

The UN is a large employer but it can only operate if it receives sufficient funds.

To turn it from a begging organisation to an organisation with clout to handle the worlds coming problems due to Climate Change, Artificial Intelligence the UN needs a source of unlimited funding, so that is not attached , or reliant on any donator Country. (See previous posts)

To have any chance of being relevant in a world that is changing it must remove the United Nations Security Council “power of veto” wielded solely by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), that enabling them to prevent the adoption of any “substantive” resolution.

At this point in the post it is worth mentioning how we got the UN in the first place.

After two major wars, it was relatively easy to get smaller nations and middle powers to give up a level of sovereignty while providing little to no recourse in return. At the same time, a carrot needed to be used to lure the major world powers to the table. In an effort to give these countries a reason to come to the table — and, in effect, subjecting themselves to the will of the other major powers — they were given the power to stop substantive resolutions that might impinge on their interests from passing.

It is important to remember that the United Nations is an institution that largely owed itself to American foreign-policy thought and, as such, it was understandably influenced a great deal by how America perceived the world to be (and, just as importantly, how America perceived the world would be).

This was centered around the idea that the post-war system was going to be predicated on the idea that each of the four major players of the Allied powers– the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the Republic of China– were going to be responsible for looking after their respective sections of the world and trying to prevent smaller conflicts from growing into larger conflicts.

In order to entice countries to join everyone agreed that decisions would require unanimity. This was, as one might guess, an astoundingly stupid decision since it meant that anything of substance was really hard to pass and remains so to the present day.

With or without the veto power the Security Council would continue to be the ultimate authority in the UN.

If somehow the veto power were taken away I personally doubt that any state would leave especially if the organisation became self financing.

If the US left, suddenly all their diplomatic power in the UN would be diminished and they run the risk of it being dominated by China or Russia.

I would say that the UN’s existence has become far more integrated and involved than the League of Nations and even with the US leaving would continue to be so important that it would not be the end of it.

It has become too useful and with almost 200 members interacting not just on security issues but environment, social, economic, refugees, labour, health, trade etc.. it has become far too important not to reform. 

The UN already does pass lots of resolutions that states such as China and the US ignore anyways, and removing the veto power would hardly change that.

Bilateral treaties and multilateral between states are not upheld because of the UN or because of the veto power, but because of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). Multilateral treaties as well as UN resolutions have vast exception mechanisms in order to get states to agree to them, and getting rid of the veto power again would not change that.

It is difficult to assess or speculate towards any consequences of removing the veto power as the process of how it happens needs to be known. If done in agreement the UN would probably continue to live on, most likely becoming more focused on negotiations and dealings with states on the Security Council to ensure that whatever proposed resolutions are passed/blocked.

Many different scenarios could be created that could change the outcome, but one thing is certain.  If the UN wants to live up to its Legitimacy it must be able to override concerns of Sovereignty which will come to the forefront in the next hundred years or so.

This can only be achieved when it becomes an Organisation that truly representative the people’s of the world, is totally transparent and Self financing.

Here is what it looks like to-day.

At the moment it’s better for the U.N. if the permanent members keep their veto power and continue funding the U.N. (particularly, the U.S., since it supplies approximately 22% of the U.N. budget at the current time).

(In 2000, the UN employed 33,049 people. In December 2016, the latest figures provided by the UN, 76,234 people were employed by the organisation – that’s more than double. Those figures don’t include people working on the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

The largest part of the total is the secretariat – the UN’s bureaucracy. That’s more than trebled in size since 2000 – from 13,164 to 39,651. But recently it’s been getting smaller. The secretariat has shrunk every year since 2010.

UNICEF, which provides aid to children, employed 13,093 people in December and has seen staff numbers rise by more than 75% since 2000.

Numbers in the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees have grown by nearly 160% from 4,142 to 10,763.

The biggest percentage change was the International Court of Justice – it has nearly four times as many staff as it did in 2000, although it still only employs 107 people.

Not everyone working for the UN will be a staff member.

For example, Unops, the UN’s project management service, employs fewer staff than it did in 2000. But it hires people for particular jobs on consultancy contracts – and those people aren’t counted.

In total, around 4,500 people are currently working for Unops – but only 843 of those are staff.)

The regular budget is agreed for two-year blocks – for 2000-01, it was a little over $2.5bn (£1.9bn at today’s rates). For 2016-17, it’s just over $5.4bn – a rise of roughly 119%, not adjusted for inflation. Not quite 140%, but still a significant increase in cash terms.

The regular budget isn’t the whole story, though. It doesn’t include the cost of peacekeeping operations. A sum of $2.7bn was set aside for those in the year 2000-01, compared with $6.8bn for 2017-18 – an increase of 148% in cash terms.

There are other costs at the UN, which fall outside both of those budgets.

There’s the cost of running the UN’s special tribunals when they’re in session – most recently examining alleged war crimes and genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

And the UN spent an extra $1.9bn outside the regular budget on refurbishing its headquarters between 2002 and 2013.

The World is bigger than 5. nuclear stockpiles.  

Most current world problems have their roots in inequality caused by greed.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of famines"

Take Yemen for example it is in the grip of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

What can be done to bring an end to the war in Yemen? And is the international community ignoring what is happening on the ground?

Nothing can be achieved, unless the United Nations taps into Greed to fund itself. 

Apart from current wars it is more than shameful that in the 21st century with all our technology, globalization, and so-called International community we have not one, not two, nor three, but four famines. That we continue to destroy the planet for shot term gain to the point that there will be no need for nations never mind United Nations.     Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of famines"

It must pass a people’s resolution to place a World Aid Commission of 0.05% (See previous posts)

All comments or sharing of this post appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.